#19 - Without information that could only have come from

[lathlee]

hi. James Finch, Thank you so much for the kind reply. so may i get the name of this flaw plz?

[Adam Tyson]

Try to avoid worrying about naming the flaws, lathlee, because you will never get an answer choice that uses one of the names we use. Instead, think about how to describe the flaw. The names help, sure, but they are not the ultimate goal. How about "failing to consider alternatives"? Or "basing a conclusion on some evidence that could just as easily support a different conclusion"? Call it a general evidence flaw, and leave it at that. It may not fit very neatly into any other category, but that's okay, because those categories are there to help you, not to bind you. It's like the list of conditional indicators - they aren't exclusive, just a good start at the most common ones.

I'll now name this flaw. It's a "what about the other guy in the room?" flaw.

What's in a name, anyway? A flaw by any other name would smell as foul, right?

[lathlee]

How about a general evidence flaw type extension - Failing to consider an alternative possibility?

[Adam Tyson]

That works for me! The name isn't important - it's your understanding of it that matters. Looks to me like you understand it. Good job!

[sherrilynm]

I can now completely understand why A is correct, but I still am not certain why E isn't.

The way I broke down E was:

Treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect...

(the evidence = the aide was witness to the meeting, given action = aide being in the room and overhearing private information, effect = information being leaked and minister resigning)

...as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect.

The author says that it's "clear" that the aide was who brought the minister down, but I thought that there could be other factors as well. For example, couldn't both the opposition party AND the aide contributed equally to the minister's resignation? Therefore, the action of the aide wouldn't be "sufficient" by itself to lead to the conclusion. Can someone help me break things down a bit further? Thanks.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi sherrilynm,

Thanks for the question! I think what tripped you up here was reading too much into E by breaking it down into way littler parts than make sense, which led you to misjudge what it is referencing. "Treating evidence....certain effect" is all one idea, and is referencing the newspaper story being published as the reason the minister had to resign. We have to take as a given that the newspaper article was, in fact, responsible for the resignation; that's part of a premise here, and not up for debate in the world of the argument we're given, because we're told directly the article forced him to resign. So, based on that, the publication of the newspaper article was in fact sufficient to bring about the resignation, and E is incorrect.

[rpark8214]

I am having trouble understanding what answer choice (C) is saying. Is it that if A brings about B, and C also brings about B, both ways were brought about in same ways (A brings about C)? Confused! Thanks!

[Daniel Stern]

For clarity's sake, I'm going to use variables X, Y, and Z, because they are not the letter names of answer choices!

So the flaw that C is describing is that if X brings about Z on one occasion, then we erroneously conclude that seeing Z on another occasion means that X happened. (When in fact, on the second occasion that we saw Z occur, it could have been an alternative cause for Z, such as Y causing Z this time around.)

I hope that helps!
Best,
Dan

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

Though I ultimately selected answer A, I was certainly tempted by E and seem to have interpreted it a bit differently than the forum suggests, so I'm wondering if someone might be able to help me understand where my take went wrong. I interpreted the "given action" in E to refer to the aide leaking the confidential details of the meeting, and the "certain effect" to be the forced resignation of the minister. In effect, the fact that the aide leaked the secrets of the meeting (and thus contributed to the publication of the newspaper, which forced the resignation of the minister) is in itself taken to have facilitated the resignation of the minister. The mere fact that the aide leaked the trade-secrets does not, however, seem to prima facie establish that the minister would have been forced to resign, since resignation was contingent upon publication of the newspaper. It seems plausible that the aide could have leaked the secrets without forcing the minister's resignation, so long as a newspaper was not published. Sorry if this is a bit convoluted, but I appreciate the help in advance!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Kelly! Nice job selecting (A).

You've made a solid case for (E), but I think it's wrong for a few reasons. Let's walk through them.

- There is no "evidence" of the "given action". (E) keeps discussing a specific piece of "evidence". You say that the "given action" refers to the aide leaking confidential details of the meeting. If this is the "given action" that (E) is referring to, then what is the "evidence" referred to by (E)? There is no evidence in the premises of the argument it was the aide who leaked confidential details.

- The argument doesn't really claim that the leaking was sufficient to bring about the resignation. The conclusion of the argument says that the finance minister was brought down by the aide; it never says that the aide's actions were alone sufficient to accomplish this.

- There's no evidence that the leaking wasn't sufficient to bring about the resignation. You say that the leak alone wasn't sufficient since "resignation was contingent upon publication of the newspaper", but we have no evidence that this is true; it's possible that the leaker wrote and published the newspaper article, or blabbed to everyone all over town, and that the leak was in fact sufficient to bring about resignation.

- (A) is by far the more substantial flaw. The first 3 points above are looking through the weeds to parse out exactly what about (E) doesn't fit. But on a more general level - the real issue with the stimulus's argument is not that it potentially mildly overstates the importance of the leaked story, but rather that the central tenet of its conclusion (that the aide and not the opposition leader is responsible) is completely baseless. Our Pre-Phrased answer should be about that glaring Flaw, and only (A) addresses it.

Hope that helps!